NZ ROCK LOBSTER INDUSTRY COUNCIL Ka whakapai te kai o te moana PRIVATE BAG 24-901 WELLINGTON 6142 64 4 385 4005 PHONE 64 4 385 2727 FAX lobster@seafood.co.nz Submission to the Primary Production Committee on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill October 4 th 2013 Introduction 1. The New Zealand Rock Lobster Industry Council (NZ RLIC) appreciates the opportunity to submit on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill (the Bill). We wish to be heard in support of our submission. Contact details are included at the end of the submission. 2. The NZ RLIC is an umbrella organisation for nine regional organisations known as CRAMACs, which operate in each of the rock lobster (CRA) management areas of New Zealand. CRAMAC membership comprises CRA quota owners, processors, exporters, and fishermen in each region. The NZ RLIC has a leading role in advising on all legislation and policy affecting the operation of the New Zealand rock lobster industry. 3. The rock lobster industry s interest in the Bill is as a major exporter of live seafood. In 2012, the industry harvested over 2,780 tonnes of rock lobster, the vast majority of which (over 2,500 tonnes) was exported live to China (70%) and Hong Kong (26%). Rock lobsters contributed NZ$223 million in export earnings to the New Zealand economy in 2012, the highest earner of any seafood species. Maintaining quality from harvest to market is vital in ensuring customer satisfaction and for retaining the premium paid for New Zealand rock lobsters. The industry has therefore invested heavily in the development and implementation of animal welfare and seafood quality practices to ensure that live rock lobsters arrive in export markets in top condition. 4. The chief executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries has determined that the risk to the welfare of rock lobsters from live export is minimal and on this basis has exempted rock lobsters from the requirement to obtain an animal welfare export certificate under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (the Act). The rock lobster industry nevertheless retains a strong interest in the Act and in the Bill because they provide the overarching statutory framework for animal welfare. The specific matters on which we wish to comment are: Provisions for the killing of wild animals or animals in a wild state (clause 17); The protection of New Zealand s reputation as a responsible exporter of agricultural products (clauses 19 and 21);
2 The replacement of guidelines for the issue of animal welfare export certificates with regulations (clauses 20 and 56); and The imposition of conditions on an animal welfare export certificate to manage post-arrival conditions (clause 22). Killing wild animals or animals in a wild state 5. Clause 17 inserts new sections 30A to 30E which replace current sections 175 to 178 of the Act. In particular, we note that new section 30B, which replaces and repeats existing section 175, provides that nothing in the Act makes it unlawful to hunt or kill (which includes fishing, taking, and catching) any animal in a wild state. The NZ RLIC supports the retention of this provision. 6. New section 30A makes it clear that acts of cruelty committed in the course of fishing (i.e., willful or reckless ill treatment of an animal) are an offence under the Act. The NZ RLIC considers that this is entirely appropriate. However, we note that a person prosecuted for an offence against section 30A has a defence if they are able to satisfy the court that their conduct is a generally accepted practice in New Zealand for the hunting or killing of wild animals of that type (new s30a(3)). 7. The Bill is silent on what constitutes generally accepted practice and how or by whom that is best determined. The NZ RLIC considers that in the case of commercial hunting or killing industry codes of practice provide the most appropriate guidance on what constitutes generally accepted practice. Recommendations: a) Support clause 17. b) Clarify that in relation to commercial hunting or killing, industry codes of practice provide a baseline for identifying generally accepted practice. Protecting New Zealand s reputation as a responsible exporter 8. The NZ RLIC agrees that it is crucial to maintain New Zealand s reputation as a responsible exporter the viability of our business depends on it. However, we firmly believe that industry reputation is in the first instance a matter for industry sectors to manage themselves. Industry reputation should only be a matter of government concern when an industry sector has demonstrably failed to take responsibility for an animal welfare issue and that failure has spillover effects on other export sectors. Even then, we consider that government intervention should only be to the extent warranted by the actual risks to animal welfare in other words it should be determined by technical considerations and not by politics or emotion. 9. We are concerned that if central government grants itself broad discretionary powers to intervene in matters relating to New Zealand s reputation as an exporter, this may have the effect of: Weakening incentives for industry sectors to take responsibility for the collective performance of their sector in relation to animal welfare issues; and Creating significant regulatory uncertainty and associated costs for export businesses.
3 10. The NZ RLIC is therefore reluctant to endorse any general power for government to intervene in industry reputational matters, as is proposed in clauses 19 and 21 of the Bill. 11. Clause 19 replaces the purpose of Part 3 (Animal Exports) with a new section 38 as follows (the Bill s amendments to current Act are shown in strikethrough and underline): The purpose of this Part is to protect the welfare of animals which are being exported from New Zealand and to protect New Zealand s reputation as a responsible exporter of agricultural products which are being transported by ship or aircraft by ensuring that the risks faced by such animals are minimised. 12. The amendment replaces a purpose that is currently focused on minimising risks to animal welfare (a technical consideration) with a dual purpose related to protecting animal welfare and protecting New Zealand s reputation (a subjective consideration). The two limbs of the new purpose are connected by the term and, meaning that protecting New Zealand s reputation is an independent consideration from protecting the welfare of animals. The NZ RLIC is concerned that this separation may create a politicised environment in which decisions under Part 3 of the Act that would not otherwise be justifiable on the basis of protecting animal welfare may be justified solely on the basis of protecting New Zealand s reputation. 13. Clause 21 amends section 43 (Consideration of application) by adding two new matters to which the chief executive must have regard when considering applications for animal welfare certificates, i.e., (ka) any regulations made under section 183C relating to the export of animals and (kb) New Zealand s reputation as a responsible exporter of agricultural products. Because new (kb) is written as an independent consideration, it could in itself be a reason for the chief executive to decline an application for an export certificate. In other words, an application that meets all the technical requirements of section 43(a) to (k) as well as the standards and requirements of the new regulations may still be declined because of New Zealand s reputation. Far from improving certainty for exporters (as intended by the shift from guidelines to regulations for assessing animal welfare export certificates), the addition of new subsection (kb) significantly increases uncertainty for exporters. 14. The NZ RLIC does not oppose the consideration of reputational matters per se, but we do object to the dissociation of reputational considerations from actual risks to animal welfare. We do not want to see the Animal Welfare Act, in so far as it applies to live exports, shift from a risk management regime based on technical judgement to a perception management regime based on political judgement. Recommendations: Either delete clauses 19 (new section 38) and 21 (new section 43(kb)); Or amend clauses 19 and 21 to clearly link protection of New Zealand s reputation to the management of risks to animal welfare. Indicative wording is provided below. 38 Purpose The purpose of this Part is to protect the welfare of animals being exported from New Zealand and to protect New Zealand s reputation as a responsible exporter of agricultural products by ensuring that the
4 risks faced by such animals are minimised. 21 Section 43 amended (Consideration of application) After section 43(k), insert (ka) [as in Bill] (kb) the impact of any risks to animal welfare on New Zealand s reputation as a responsible exporter of agricultural products 15. The NZ RLIC also suggests that there may be merit in adding to the Animal Welfare Act a section requiring decision-makers to consider prescribed information principles when making decisions. Information principles, such as a requirement to use the best available information and guidance on making decisions when information is uncertain, can help ensure that animal welfare risk assessment decisions have a factual basis, irrespective of any uncertainty in the available information. Similar requirements can be found in other legislation that requires decision makers to make robust technical decisions, often in an environment of uncertainty, and with the need to reconcile competing views for example, the Fisheries Act 1996 (section 10) and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (section 34). Recommendation: Consider adding a new section to the Animal Welfare Act, requiring decision-makers to act in accordance with an appropriate set of Information principles, including a requirement to base decisions on the best available information. Regulations for the issue of animal welfare export certificates 16. The Bill replaces the current system of guidelines for assessing applications for animal welfare export certificates with regulations. Although rock lobster exports are not directly affected by the proposed regulations (as they are exempt from the requirement to obtain an animal welfare export certificate) NZ RLIC expects that any regulations should: be commensurate with the actual level of risk to animal welfare (i.e., be based on science, not public perception); be developed in partnership with the industry sector to which they apply; recognise that unforeseen events (bad weather causing delays, mechanical failure etc) cannot be controlled by the exporter and should therefore not constitute an offence; and be sufficiently flexible (or be able to be changed with minimal time and fuss) to respond to changing market conditions or requirements. 17. We acknowledge that these expectations are matters for the development of regulations, rather than for the Bill itself. However, our concerns about the proposed amendment to the purpose of Part 3 (above) mean that we cannot be confident that the regulatory framework will be developed in a manner that is commensurate with actual risks to animal welfare.
5 Managing post-arrival conditions 18. Clause 22 amends section 45 (Conditions) to enable the chief executive to impose a condition on an animal welfare export certificate that requires the exporter to manage specified post-arrival conditions in the importing country. The NZ RLIC considers that it is unreasonable to place a condition on an export certificate that requires an exporter to manage matters that may be beyond the exporter s control. Recommendation: Amend clause 22, new subsection 45(1)(la) to read a condition that requires the exporter to manage specified post-arrival conditions in the importing country, provided it is reasonably within the exporter s control to do so Yours sincerely NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council Executive Officer Contact Details: Daryl Sykes Executive Officer NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council lobster@seafood.co.nz Private Bag 24-901 Wellington 6142 04 802 1509 021 415032